Cruisers Forum
 


Reply
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on Cruisers Forums. Advertise Here
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 19-03-2013, 16:48   #61
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,441
Re: What happened to Bruce almighty?

The very high-spec material also lends credibility to the proposition that one problem with some knock-offs is that they have to bump up the thickness of the side-flukes to compensate for the weaker material, which affects the ability of the anchor to set or re-set properly.

Nevertheless they set well enough for most purposes for most people, and I guess it makes sense that, once the patents expired, it would be hard for the Bruce company to compete against products which were much cheaper to make.

(It's not just the material costs, but manganese steel is tricky and expensive to make good castings from, and heat treating and rigorous quality control adds further expense)

It's perhaps a sad case of a 'race to the bottom'.
Andrew Troup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-03-2013, 17:46   #62
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,945
Re: What happened to Bruce almighty?

I have repeated it here on CF many times, but I was next to an anchored boat about my size when we both went through a rather ordinary cold front in good holding in Boot Key Harbor a few years back. Wind switched 180 degrees and built to maybe 30-35 knots at the most. He pulled up his anchor the next day, apparently a Claw I believe, and the shank was bent right over. He immediately got rid of it and was shopping for another anchor. He was a fan of Bruce anchors, but not happy with the quality of that particular knock off. On the other hand, it did hold the boat, but it certainly was not an extreme blow.
__________________
Kettlewell Cruising
Kettlewell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-03-2013, 19:35   #63
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,441
Re: What happened to Bruce almighty?

Oops, typo, should have been 1.6% Manganese.

I'm going from memory on the composition, so don't cast an anchor on my say-so

;-)
Andrew Troup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-03-2013, 19:38   #64
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,441
Re: What happened to Bruce almighty?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kettlewell View Post
I have repeated it here on CF many times, but I was next to an anchored boat about my size when we both went through a rather ordinary cold front in good holding in Boot Key Harbor a few years back. Wind switched 180 degrees and built to maybe 30-35 knots at the most. He pulled up his anchor the next day, apparently a Claw I believe, and the shank was bent right over. He immediately got rid of it and was shopping for another anchor. He was a fan of Bruce anchors, but not happy with the quality of that particular knock off. On the other hand, it did hold the boat, but it certainly was not an extreme blow.
Hmm - I'm having a bit of trouble reconciling this story with a post you just made on the other thread (Is Bigger Better?), in which you questioned whether strong shanks were of any merit, provided they didn't bend when the anchor was holding a straight line, rated load....

I should point out (in relation to a question you asked in that post) that, from an engineering point of view, the bending loads on the shank -- at least in a vertical lift -- are little different whether the anchor is restrained by a uniform load across the flukes or a point load at the tip.

The photos in the BoatUS test show that the shank was bending well away from the junction with the flukes, so the stress distribution at that junction is not germane.
Andrew Troup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-03-2013, 21:35   #65
Do… or do not
 
s/v Jedi's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: in paradise
Boat: Sundeer 64
Posts: 11,832
Re: What happened to Bruce almighty?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Troup View Post
So, Jedi ... were you thinking of lying to a single Fortress, should you chance to get the big Bruce irretrievably jammed and have to slip it?

(I'm a big fan of big Bruces as the most reliable single proposition, BTW, but I don't want all my eggs in that one basket)
I don't believe in irretrievable but would be prepared to slip with a marker and later anchor close-by with a Fortress while retrieving the Bruce. If there would be shifting winds or tides, then I would anchor to two Fortress anchors that I carry as a Bahamian Moor.

After hurricane Ivan I managed to retrieve the Bruce and store it in the sail locker while using a FX-85 for anchoring.
First squall that passed with 180 degree wind-shift we immediately took off. I then added a FX-125 towards the beach and next squall we took off again, but the 125 held so that we dragged towards the beach until we touched ground. These were nasty 50-60 knot squalls but still, with our Bruce we hardly get impressed with those. I was very happy when we put the rebuilt anchor-sprit back again
Here is the hoisting rig I used for that:
s/v Jedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-03-2013, 23:45   #66
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,441
Re: What happened to Bruce almighty?

Nick / Jedi

I'm sure that if, like you, I "sailed in paradise", I too would not "believe in irretrievable" anchors

(sorry, I'm trying to take make a serious point with "smiley face" repartee - but if you don't find if funny, I guess it may not work!)

Thanks for the context, it makes it easier to make sense of your advice.

It helps me make sense of the apparent conflicts between your recommendations for others: "multiple anchors are "asking for trouble" - vs your plans for yourself: "I would anchor to two Fortress anchors" ... not to mention your actions (... "I then added a FX-125").

My point was that we have a lot of experienced people on this forum, like yourself, portraying the use of several anchors as unwise.

While there are definitely circumstances where it's unwise: big boats lacking big crews, crowded anchorages ... I'm not sure that's good advice in the general case, when most people who sail long and far will encounter circumstances which will dictate that, at times, the use of several anchors is not just wise but essential.

I sometimes sail alone, don't carry heavy underwater salvage equipment, and don't always anchor in ideal bottoms, so I cannot be certain my main anchor will always be retrievable.

And I will have to carry a much heavier and more specialised anchor than my "oversized" Bruce main anchor if I am to be sure of anchoring securely in bull kelp-ridden anchorages, so I can't afford for my other reserve anchors to be comparable to my main anchor in weight. Furthermore, they all have to have 'special powers' to make it onto the boat at all.

I also don't expect to be often sailing in waters where I can get a replacement for my main anchor. It follows that I will inevitably be using multi-anchor sets in challenging conditions if and when I lose my main anchor, and that causes me nothing in the way of misgivings.
It's inconvenient, but holds no dangers which cannot be remedied.

Clearly my circumstances don't apply to everyone else, and I don't advise others to copy what I do.

I'm just making a plea to others not to routinely issue context-free advice which assumes that everyone elses' circumstances will match their own, especially when dispensed with such authority and emphasis that it looks as though it's carved on a stone tablet somewhere.

Given that this is a strong habit both of sailors and of web forum participants generally, I'm resigned to business as usual, but occasionally I feel strongly enough that I have to put an alternative view.
Andrew Troup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2013, 06:27   #67
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,945
Re: What happened to Bruce almighty?

Quote:
Hmm - I'm having a bit of trouble reconciling this story with a post you just made on the other thread (Is Bigger Better?), in which you questioned whether strong shanks were of any merit, provided they didn't bend when the anchor was holding a straight line, rated load....
Andrew, Since this thread is about Bruce anchors I was mainly pointing out that some anchors that look like a Bruce are not made to the same standard. I was anchored on two anchors and so my anchors were not subjected to the veering stress that his anchor was in this wind shift. I think it is particularly important for folks who want to use a single big anchor (the BIB crowd) that they have one with a very strong shank, because it will be subject to side loads in that sort of wind shift.
__________________
Kettlewell Cruising
Kettlewell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2013, 06:32   #68
cat herder, extreme blacksheep
 
zeehag's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: furycame alley , tropics, mexico for now
Boat: 1976 FORMOSA yankee clipper 41
Posts: 18,899
Images: 56
Send a message via Yahoo to zeehag Send a message via Skype™ to zeehag
Re: What happened to Bruce almighty?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kettlewell View Post
Andrew, Since this thread is about Bruce anchors I was mainly pointing out that some anchors that look like a Bruce are not made to the same standard. I was anchored on two anchors and so my anchors were not subjected to the veering stress that his anchor was in this wind shift. I think it is particularly important for folks who want to use a single big anchor (the BIB crowd) that they have one with a very strong shank, because it will be subject to side loads in that sort of wind shift.
i noticed the difference between genuine bruce and the knockoffs immediately upon my inspection. i will not use a knock off, but i do love the genuine bruce anchors. they work great and i am comfortable with them. they set well and hold awesome well. have yet to have any problem with retrieval. i sail in sunken mountains. lots of rocks and some sand and mud stuff...bruce is awesome in this, even thru tormentas with good winds.
__________________
life is an adventure meant to be LIVED!!!!
https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...oul+mates.html


https://sksolitarybird.org/
zeehag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2013, 07:35   #69
Do… or do not
 
s/v Jedi's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: in paradise
Boat: Sundeer 64
Posts: 11,832
Re: What happened to Bruce almighty?

@Andrew: no, I still say that one should use only 1 anchor, but I always add "in 99% of the cases".

When my bowsprit got destroyed in a hurricane, that belongs to that 1%. And when one anchors on a tidal river with 180 degree shifts in current, that belongs to that 1% too. But if your anchor is too small to hold your boat, this is not a valid reason to use two anchors.
s/v Jedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2013, 12:21   #70
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,441
Re: What happened to Bruce almighty?

Nick

Firstly:

Does your "1% of cases" include:

- anchoring backed into a small cove using shorelines
- safeguarding a rock/weed pick from rode fouling the upstanding fluke, or a Danforth/Fortress from shank bending on a windshift
- reanchoring a boat which has lost the main anchor due to shackle breakage or underwater thievery, or other circumstances mentioned earlier
- setting up a star using 3 or 4 anchors, a heavy swivel and a single pendant
in preparation for leaving a boat unattended in a remote anchorage
- setting up in preparation to be anchor boat for a multi-vessel raft
- windlass or bowroller out of action


as well as the 180 degree tide-influenced situation you mention?

It seems to me, for instance, that someone whose home-water anchorages are largely tidal rivers, and whose summer cruising grounds are largely wooded coves (which is a very common combination in this part of the world) would be puzzled by your assessment.

It seems to me you're still making assumptions about other peoples circumstances matching your own.

Secondly, I presume you have your last sentence backwards, and that what you really mean is, "just because you intend to use two anchors, that is not a valid reason to carry anchors which are too small for your boat"?
Andrew Troup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2013, 12:24   #71
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,945
Re: What happened to Bruce almighty?

Andrew, if you don't mind my asking, where are your "home-water anchorages?"
__________________
Kettlewell Cruising
Kettlewell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2013, 12:30   #72
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,441
Re: What happened to Bruce almighty?

SI, NZ
Andrew Troup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2013, 12:33   #73
Do… or do not
 
s/v Jedi's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: in paradise
Boat: Sundeer 64
Posts: 11,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Troup View Post
Nick

Firstly:

Does your "1% of cases" include:

- anchoring backed into a small cove using shorelines
- safeguarding a rock/weed pick from rode fouling the upstanding fluke, or a Danforth/Fortress from shank bending on a windshift
- reanchoring a boat which has lost the main anchor due to shackle breakage or underwater thievery, or other circumstances mentioned earlier
- setting up a star using 3 or 4 anchors, a heavy swivel and a single pendant
in preparation for leaving a boat unattended in a remote anchorage
- setting up in preparation to be anchor boat for a multi-vessel raft
- windlass or bowroller out of action

as well as the 180 degree tide-influenced situation you mention?

It seems to me, for instance, that someone whose home-water anchorages are largely tidal rivers, and whose summer cruising grounds are largely wooded coves (which is a very common combination in this part of the world) would be puzzled by your assessment.

It seems to me you're still making assumptions about other peoples circumstances matching your own.

Secondly, I presume you have your last sentence backwards, and that what you really mean is, "just because you intend to use two anchors, that is not a valid reason to carry anchors which are too small for your boat"?
I don't think I agree with some of this at all so no to anything about aDanforth or Fortress to help them because those should not be the primary anchor. Also, no to rafting. The emergency situations are always different so that is just silly, I can come with many more unusual ones. The star anchoring is not anchoring but creating a mooring which is fine, very good even when done like you describe. But no to small cove with shore lines... why complicate that with extra anchors?! It's asking for trouble.

No, in 99% of all cases your primary anchor must be able to keep the boat from dragging or you need a better anchor. I leave emergencies out of this; it is for an operational boat.
__________________
This is just an answer/comment; not interested in arguing or dealing with the trolls
s/v Jedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2013, 13:01   #74
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,441
Re: What happened to Bruce almighty?

"But no to small cove with shore lines... why complicate that with extra anchors?! It's asking for trouble."

I'm glad you asked. The reason is that small wooded coves are great for protection from the aft sector, but swinging room is limited. This means that, if relying on a single bow anchor, the shorelines may need to be unreasonably snug. If wind can blow into the cove from a range of angles in the forward sector, these shorelines can hold the boat side on to the wind, putting unfair loads on the main anchor, in a similar way to swigging a halyard.

Given that the shorelines prevent the boat from circling and tangling the rodes on multiple anchors (the usual objection) it makes perfect sense to me to lay the main anchor in the direction of the strongest gusts, and kedge(s) in the direction of side wind(s). If these winds are strong, it may pay to lead the shorelines to the chainplates rather than the quarters, to allow the boat to weathercock to these gusts from the side, further reducing the loads.

This is a wonderfully snug arrangement, and if I've been asking for trouble all the times I've done it, I'm puzzled as to why I never got an answer. ;-)
Andrew Troup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2013, 13:21   #75
Do… or do not
 
s/v Jedi's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: in paradise
Boat: Sundeer 64
Posts: 11,832
Re: What happened to Bruce almighty?

If you don't want gusts from the sides you must anchor on one anchor so that the wind is always from straight ahead. When you anchor in a small cove without room to swing, for which you tie off to the shore, you will have wind from the sides. I don't see how extra anchors solve that when, like you say, you can tie shore lines to chain plates etc.

So, instead of your kedge anchor (we don't have a kedge anchor, it is an obsolete word imnsho) you can just tie a line to shore. Or find another cove with more room.

How much scope you have out? we anchor on 3:1 scope in these situations, instead of our normal 5:1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Troup View Post
"But no to small cove with shore lines... why complicate that with extra anchors?! It's asking for trouble."

I'm glad you asked. The reason is that small wooded coves are great for protection from the aft sector, but swinging room is limited. This means that, if relying on a single bow anchor, the shorelines may need to be unreasonably snug. If wind can blow into the cove from a range of angles in the forward sector, these shorelines can hold the boat side on to the wind, putting unfair loads on the main anchor, in a similar way to swigging a halyard.

Given that the shorelines prevent the boat from circling and tangling the rodes on multiple anchors (the usual objection) it makes perfect sense to me to lay the main anchor in the direction of the strongest gusts, and kedge(s) in the direction of side wind(s). If these winds are strong, it may pay to lead the shorelines to the chainplates rather than the quarters, to allow the boat to weathercock to these gusts from the side, further reducing the loads.

This is a wonderfully snug arrangement, and if I've been asking for trouble all the times I've done it, I'm puzzled as to why I never got an answer. ;-)
s/v Jedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Advertise Here


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:52.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.